[llvm-dev] [RFC] Deprecating autoconf: Let's do it!

Mon Nov 9 16:49:56 PST 2015

That would be fine with me.  I just don't want some new visitor to come along and see "CMake only" and get discouraged and leave.

-----Original Message-----
From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 6:30 PM
To: Jonathan Roelofs
Cc: John Reagan; Chris Bieneman; llvm-dev; llvm-dev-request at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Deprecating autoconf: Let's do it!

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/9/15 4:02 PM, John Reagan via llvm-dev wrote:
>> Keeping the documentation with large warnings is sufficient.  It 
>> would at least let somebody then grab an older version's makefiles if 
>> they are so inclined/interested.  I have no problem with you yanking 
>> the files, just the fact that older versions did have 
>> configure/makefiles.  I only spoke up when I saw the suggestion for 
>> removing the online documentation.
> 
> ISTM that this would be "solved" by making old versions of the docs available on the website.  I'd rather we avoid documenting features we don't have (even given such a large warning at the top).

+1.

We already keep the old versions on the website AFAIK, for example: http://llvm.org/releases/3.6.0/docs/index.html

What we may do is changing the sentence in the “Getting Started” page ( http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html ) from:

"The usual build uses CMake. If you would rather use autotools, see Building LLVM with auto tools.”

to 

"The only supported way to build LLVM is using CMake. Releases up to 3.8 were also providing an alternative with the autotools.”

Best,

—
Mehdi

> 
> 
> Jon
> 
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: cbieneman at apple.com
>> [mailto:cbieneman at apple.com] On Behalf Of Chris Bieneman Sent:
>> Monday, November 09, 2015 5:43 PM To: John Reagan Cc: llvm-dev;
>> llvm-dev-request at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC]
>> Deprecating autoconf: Let's do it!
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:49 AM, John Reagan via llvm-dev
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As somebody who's currently hosting LLVM on a platform (OpenVMS
>>> Itanium) that has configure but not a working CMake (we're working
>>> to fix that but there are some tricky issues), I would appreciate
>>> if you didn't scrub the existence of configure from the source or
>>> the documentation.
>> 
>> Are you proposing that we keep the makefiles? I think we specifically
>> want to get rid of those because it doesn’t make sense to have them
>> around if they aren’t expected to work. I don’t think we will do a
>> concerted scrub of all makefile-related code, but I do expect we’ll
>> remove the configure script and all the makefiles themselves.
>> 
>> We could keep the autoconf documentation around for a release or two
>> with a big “warning” at the top saying the autoconf system is removed
>> in 3.9 and later.
>> 
>> Do you think that is sufficient?
>> 
>> -Chris
>> 
>>> Perhaps keep pointers to the older pages and link to them from the
>>> downloads pages or something with an "as-is" message?  It would at
>>> least give somebody a head start if they didn't have CMake.  Even
>>> telling me to yank the script from an older version would be
>>> sufficient.
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Message: 8 Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 09:56:42 -0800 From: Chris
>>> Bieneman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> To: llvm-dev
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Deprecating
>>> autoconf: Let's do it! Message-ID:
>>> <4D17078D-A8AA-446F-8FFB-5988583628CB at apple.com> Content-Type:
>>> text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>> 
>>> Hi LLVMDev,
>>> 
>>> Since my last update we’ve landed patches for these issues: * Bug
>>> 14200 - -fno-rtti not in cxxflags given by llvm-config * Bug 23746
>>> - test-suite lacks CMake support * Bug 25059 - CMake
>>> libllvm.so.$MAJOR.$MINOR shared object name not compatible with
>>> ldconfig
>>> 
>>> On my last thread Jonathan Roelofs pointed out that there is a
>>> workaround for Bug 21568 (Cannot add rpath), so I’m making it
>>> non-blocking. Which leaves only Bug 23947, which I’m also going to
>>> move that to non-blocking because it only applies to building LLVM
>>> on MIPS64 hardware.
>>> 
>>> With those changes we have no issues left blocking deprecating
>>> autoconf. There are still some issues we should track and follow
>>> through on, but I think all major uses are covered and we can make
>>> CMake the only officially supported way to build LLVM.
>>> 
>>> My proposal at this point is that we should officially deprecate
>>> autoconf, and I would like to follow this process for removing it:
>>> 
>>> (1) Add a note to the release notes for 3.8, and a big warning at
>>> the end of the configure script telling people to use CMake (2)
>>> Support autoconf with bug fixes only, no new features for 3.8 (3)
>>> After the 3.8 branch remove all the makefiles and have the
>>> configure script log a message to use CMake (4) After the 3.9
>>> branch remove the configure script completely
>>> 
>>> I’ve attached a patch that handles the first step. Please let me
>>> know if this sounds like a reasonable path for the community.
>>> 
>>> Also, a big “Thank You” to everyone who has contributed patches,
>>> reviewed patches, and helped out with this work over the last year.
>>> It has been a long road, but the end is in sight!
>>> 
>>> Thanks, -Chris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers
>>> mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers
>> mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Jon Roelofs
> jonathan at codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
> 
> -- 
> Jon Roelofs
> jonathan at codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev